Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday April 28, 2011 @12:58PM
from the put-your-speed-trap-riiiiight-here dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The GPS systems in TomTom's Live range all feature built-in 3G data cards, which feed location and route information back to a central server. According to CNET, this data, along with users' speed information, is being made available to local governments and the police."
From the article: "Knowing the cops can see where you're driving and how fast you're going is eye-opening stuff, but TomTom says the data is anonymous and can never be traced back to an individual user or device. Ordinarily, we'd be reassured by this, but we recall Apple saying something similar before the location-tracking excrement hit the phone-carrying fan."

"We are now aware that the police have used traffic information that you have helped to create to place speed cameras at dangerous locations where the average speed is higher than the legally allowed speed limit," he says.

cough *BS* cough They are using it to make more money and just place the cameras where the probability is higher to make money! Thanks TOM TOM your company was going downhill, but it will REALLY go downhill now!

cough *BS* cough They are using it to make more money and just place the cameras where the probability is higher to make money! Thanks TOM TOM your company was going downhill, but it will REALLY go downhill now!

According to the police in Essex, UK, they have about 100 boxes in the county, and 25 of them contain cameras. All 100 measure the speed, flash a light when you drive past too fast, and count the number of flashes. The main purpose of the boxes is to slow down traffic, and that works equally well with or without camera. They only have 25 cameras because having to handle photos from 100 cameras is too much work. After a while people start figuring out where they get flashed without getting a ticket, so the n

No, not at all. You stop accidents where accidents happen. Speeding does not always mean crashing. Most people are perfectly capable of controlling their vehicle and allowing sufficient space beyond the ridiculously low limits.

Most people are perfectly capable of controlling their vehicle and allowing sufficient space beyond the ridiculously low limits.

Where do you live? MOST places I've driven, the only safe speed would be zero. Really, there are enormous numbers of drivers who have fundamental issues with parking lots, much less the actual roadway.

[...] Most people are perfectly capable of controlling their vehicle and allowing sufficient space beyond the ridiculously low limits.

Apparently I have yet to encounter most people on the road. I always get the deranged suicidal inconsiderate moronic minority that is out to get me killed by speeding beyond their brakes' physical limitations, not keeping even a semblance of space, changing lanes at a whim with no use of either the indicator or the rear view mirror and multitasking so fervently I can hardly tell if they are driving at all or if they have an autopilot.

And many people are what are called Dunning Incompetent, since they seriously overestimate their own abilities. Strangely enough, these individuals can most often be found complaining that they are not allowed to violate laws even though they are obviously so much better then everyone else at determining their abilities.

Isn't that exactly the same thing? If you want to make money, you place cameras where people most often speed. If you want to prevent high-speed accidents... just the same.

No, it isn't. If you want to make money, you place cameras where people most often speed. If you want to prevent high speed accidents, you assign police officers to patrol areas where people drive dangerously. Speed ticket cameras do not cause people to slow down (or at least they take a significant amount of time to do so). The presence of police officers always results in people slowing down. Additionally, areas where the police are frequently visible have significantly slower traffic than areas where the police are rarely seen.

Not the same. For example, a straight non-residential road with an unusually low speed limit will get tons of speeders, but that wouldn't translate to more high-speed accidents. It just means the limit posted is too low relative to similar roads.

Speeding and accidents have only sometimes are connected. People most often are speeding when, 1. the road is long, straight and very few hazards are around. 2. Speed limit changes, in my area speed traps are almost all shortly after major drops in the limits, IE 60 down to 45 etc... Cops eat that for lunch and get steady stream of tickets around there from people who didn't see the sign or couldn't slow down fast enough. Accidents yeah they do happen around there, usually from one person slowing down quick

Not just that; but I would not be surprised if accidents do not go up at camera locations. I've noticed that in the VA-DC-MD area intersections with red light cameras tend to have extremely short yellow cycles. This results in motorists either slamming on the brakes at the yellow, or the accelerator to clear the intersection in a panic. Similarly, motorists tend to brakes suddenly on detecting any device array that appears to be speed trap. I wonder how may sudden brake incidents occur during lightening sto

Don't go straight to the Congressman! The municipalities in the area determine the limits based on surveys done for the street you are on. There is usually someone that can help you resolve it at your local public offices.

(I happen to have a friend trying to get a 150ft. strip of a road nearby reclassified. The road is 55mph except for a small patch where the neighboring county juts over the road and the road is 35mph there. It strictly had to do with an oversight and/or inconsistencies in how the speed

Personally I think it's just great what they're doing. People are speeding like crazy, often talking on the phone at the same time, and then every now and then someone dies. Just a month or two ago my friend's uncle got killed in an accident where someone thought he was a real speed demon and ended up crashing on the aforementioned uncle's car. My car has been crashed into too, just two weeks ago, and just today a 15-year old girl got killed because of someone speeding.

All those people were doing something else as well... Crashing. Speeding without crashing is safe. It also does not generate an accident report. This is specifically about places where people speed, and do not crash enough to be noticed. Using you logic I could say that they all were breathing, so outlaw breathing while driving.

Ha, you overestimate [google.com] how much people care, investors and customers alike.

TomTom is down a whopping 0.8% on the day and over the past 5 days it's up 1.2%. There was a large selloff yesterday morning (presumably the information first became public overnight?) but the price quickly recovered.

where doing business at all in the US will require that all consumer data be stored and then anal-ized and offered to the Police State we now live. Its going to get really messy when the union itself stops producing KY to make the process just a little more painful than it already is... Withdraw-pleasure-center syndrome coming.

There must be a way to use the 3G data card in there to do some interesting things. And as I understand it, mobile networks (like all wireless networks) require unique identifiers and all manner of other things... things which do trace back to identity. So this claim of being anonymous is simply wrong, misleading and "almost" a lie.

As with the iPhone and Android messes, the data IS NOT CURRENTLY used to identify users. (but it could be at the flip of a switch, and by the way, the company says they have the right to do this if they want, because you agreed to the EULATOSetc.)

As with the iPhone and Android messes, the data IS NOT CURRENTLY used to identify users. (but it could be at the flip of a switch, and by the way, the company says they have the right to do this if they want, because you agreed to the EULATOSetc.)

Agreed, 100%. Someone, somewhere will have a high-speed crash with tragic consequences, then the 'think of the children' folks will start demanding full speed monitoring of all vehicles, with instant prosecution for speeding. That is, if they don't demand 'Intelligent Speed Adaptation' (a GPS unit with a database of all speed limits that physically restricts a vehicle to the speed limit in force), which some are already.

I think the real problem is that in many cases laws have been passed with sporadic or discretionary enforcement in mind, and more and more new technology is coming along that enables 'total enforcement'. To take speed as an example, someone driving at 80mph in a 70mph limit would probably in 1970 have little to worry about from the police. In 2000 they might have to watch for speed cameras. Now, they hope that the stretch of road they're on doesn't have full-length ANPR enforcement. In 2020 their own car might report them, or physically stop them, lest they become a 'dangerous criminal' risking the lives of the millions of children who play on motorway shoulders.

The official speed limit hasn't changed, yet the effective speed limit has dropped (and there are opposing arguments about whether that is right, considering improvements in car handling/braking/safety vs increases in general road traffic). The same pattern is repeated for other laws too.

"We retain the right to alter the agreement for any damn reason we see fit at any time. Pray that we don't alter the agreement further. Any claims to be resolved by the laws of the state of Delaware by a mediator of our choosing, who you will pay for. You have no rights. Those are reserved for corporations, not people. Just hand over the money and nobody needs to get hurt. Click-through agreements aren't enforceable. But we can use them to bully you into not exercising your non-existent rights."

It does not change the fact that TomTom is secretly submitting data collected from its customers to the police for a profit. I don't want the bottom line of privacy to be "as long as your name does not appear on it, it is fine".

Does it matter if they are tracking who it is or not? It would be one thing if police officers, police departments and other government agencies weren't greedy and they would use this data to show that the speed limit should be increased, but it won't be used this way. You and I both know that all this will be used to do is make money for the police force to justify its existence and expansion in low crime areas.

Yesterday morning he story broke via the largest Dutch newspaper and last night I received a mail from TomTom stating this was not what they expected and they would prevent any further use of their data for this purpose.

What actually happened is they sell the aggregated data to whoever is interested, one company distilled out the stretches of road where most speeding happened and sold it to the police.

I don't get it. Why is it dastardly to use a source of data to determine where to setup speed traps? It actually makes a lot of sense to me. Why would I want the government wasting all kinds of money putting up speed traps in areas where speeding isn't a problem?

This sounds more like smart government to me.

The fact that people were speeding in those places without the government knowing, and without an unusual accident record suggests to me that speeding in those places isn't a problem.

It's a cache of a subset of a database from Apple. It's not a list of locations the user was at. Also, it's not necessarily intentional, because all the things you mentioned are the defaults for iOS. Intentional is, in fact, the changes they are putting into the next iOS update, which address every single concern on this issue.

Apple collects this data under the context of i.e. iAds and transmits it back whether you use the GPS or not. As for TomTom... well, you'll find out if you're foolish and self-hating enough to remain a TomTom customer.

How did Apple try "this trick"? They never store secific locations, and never tied together location data, even from the same device. It really is completely anonymous.

Let's assume the iOS data includes speed (it doesn't, but potentially could). The way it works is that Apple would never know that the phone that was traveling 90MPH at 10am was the same phone that was connected to the cell tower 3 miles from your home and saw the six WiFi access points in your neighborhood at 6am.

Last night, some 12 hours after the news came out, I received an apologetic mail from them promising this would no longer be allowed plus a voucher for a free update to their data base of known speed traps.

I don't have a TomTom (got an Android and TomTom in the same birthday), but I don't believe you have to register for any TomTom service, you just buy the thing, plug it in, and it does map-stuff. Unless you sign up for their map update service, I doubt they HAVE your information to give to LEOs. What can they tell you, the serial number of the unit in your car? I'm sure law enforcement, with the ten minutes a month they don't spend trying to hunt down people with insignificant personal quantities of marijuana, will set up a checkpoint so they can check the serial numbers of every TomTom looking for that bastard with serial #93824920535326469 who went 5 miles over the speed limit last week at 4am.

I'm sure law enforcement, with the ten minutes a month they don't spend trying to hunt down people with insignificant personal quantities of marijuana, will set up a checkpoint so they can check the serial numbers of every TomTom looking for that bastard with serial #93824920535326469 who went 5 miles over the speed limit last week at 4am.

But your missing the point. Sure, the Police are unlikely to target you, anonymous peon in the great game, with any sort of energy. However, when you suddenly decide to clamp on the tinfoil hat even tighter, put on your secret decoder ring and start on your plan to become Master of the Universe, THEN they will quietly talk to the seedy looking guy in the basement of the PD, the guy with all the blinking electronic gizmos and computers that have login screens with 100 point type (and an FBI badge). He w

This may skirt dangerously close to a Fifth Amendment (self-incrimination) issue. The standard example was the NY Thruway, where the entry and exit times were used (along with the Intermediate Value Theorem, which makes it a great problem for intro calc classes) to prove speeding. The judge tossed it on the basis that drivers were compelled to "testify" against themselves by paying the toll.

That's why you're not getting a ticket based on the toll transponders you use every day.

Location data that starts and ends at your house every day is not anonymous. Futhermore, this is one of those things you shouldn't give a inch on, it's only a small step now to track 'dissidents' that go to mosques or Democratic party meetings, gay/lesbian support groups, etc. Of course, it will only hurt the innocent, as the bad guys wouldn't be dumb enough to keep this.

Although the data is anonymous, it is used to determine the places on the highway where the average speed is the highest. That's where the police sets up their speeding camera. Not where speeding might present the biggest danger, but where the financial reward is the highest.

This confirms once more that speed traps are tax devices and not meant to make traffic any safer.

Tom Tom does not need to submit any user ID. The police can build their own database from red light cameras and photo radar. Location, time, speed, database. Add in RFID in the tire pressure monitors and Tom Tom can make that claim with a clear conscience. This does not rule out the creation of a 3rd party database.

"The GPS systems in TomTom's Live range all feature built-in 3G data cards, which feed location and route information back to a central server. According to CNET, this data, along with users' speed information, is being made available to local governments and the police.""and then:"TomTom says the data is anonymous and can never be traced back to an individual user or device."Ok TomTom, if you're telling them my location, heading, and speed... don't you think it would be rather easy for them to figure out w

They give tickets for people who've run red lights and been captured by the camera. This would be no different. Electronic witness versus electronic witness. The camera doesn't lie... well, the GPS doesn't lie, either.

I think you might be mistaken on the meaning of that: You cannot be tried or punished for doing something that was not illegal when you did it; but later became illegal. Nor can you be re-punished if you were convicted of a crime that carried one sentence when you committed it; but was later changed to carry a different sentence(unless you are just inherently evil, like those convicted of sex offenses who were then added to the newly created 'registry' systems).

Of course they are. Data covering specific area's of inquiry is extremely valuable. Company's only exist to make money, everything else is a distant 5th or 10th concern.

doesn't matter if it is polluting water, or giving away information on their customers, as long as it either makes money or is cheaper than the alternatives companies will do it. That is why polluters only respond to threats of massive fines. it suddenly becomes cheaper to do things right.

I can see how providing anonymized data to your local and/or federal DOT could be seen as a public safety benefit and thus a public service. But it should be opt-in for the end user, not automatic and silent.

Red light cameras, when used properly, are great. They do a great job of stopping the idiots who think "just one more" is okay. The problem comes when they are treated as a source of revenue: the camera warning signs get taken down (I've seen this happen in a nearby town) and then the yellow light cycle is shortened to get tickets from people who actually know the light timings. My hometown installed cameras a few years ago, and one very bright member of the city council managed to push a law through which required warning signs within xxx feet of the intersection AND mandated yellow light times according to the speed limit. Their ticket revenue went up and then back down, and the accident rate went down as well.

Likewise, anonymous speed data would be hugely useful to city planners. If people are constantly speeding through an area that has almost no accidents, they could consider raising the speed limit on a trial basis. People who drive 55 in a 45 all the time will usually drive 60 in a 50, so ticket revenue will still be there. Higher speed limits mean being able to move more cars through on the same lanes, rather than having to sink money into additional lanes when a road gets overcrowded.

I certainly agree with the benefits of public safety. So instead of opting in or out when you power on the device for the first time, perhaps it should be made clear in a EULA that the device will be anonymously submitting data in real time, whether you like it or not. That way they can gather their statistics from all users without finding themselves in the same mess as Apple. Though for all I know, maybe they already do this.

What irks me though is that while your submitted speed and coordinates may not be

I am an apple apologist, I guess. The reason is that I see the fact that Apple stores your location data on your cell phone when you are using their _location_ services as less serious than TomTom _giving_away_ your data to the authorities on a general basis, with no warrant or anything of the sort. Funny thing is, I don't even have an iPhone myself, and even I think that analogy fails pretty miserably.

I couldn't agree more. Apple simple created a security weakness on your phone and on your own computer, but didn't (as far as anyone has shown) upload this data to anyone.

TomTom has just joined my permanent Do Not Buy list. Their allegations that it can't be tracked ring hollow.

Actually, the real complaint seems to be that TomTom collected speed data from volunteers, gave it in anonymous form to the police (among others), and the police used it to figure out on which roads people were regularly exceeding the speed limit, so the put up speeding cameras there.
In the end, it is the job of the police to find where people are driving dangerously and do something about it. If the police got lots of complaints from people living on a street about speeding, and acted on that information

It never recorded your location. It's a cache (about 2MB) of a subset of Apple's location database. Your phone tells Apple, "I see these cell towers, and these WiFi access points" and Apple sends a small database of other nearby towers and APs, with their coordinates, so that as you drive around, your phone can estimate its location when you use Location Services, thus greatly speeding up GPS lock.

They 'triangulate' your location based on nearby towers and wifi signals. It isn't the tower locations or you'd have the same data recorded hundreds of times.

And yes, keeping a history of where I've been even if it isn't 'down to the square foot, and doing it *secretly* in a way that cops can readily access when they pull me over? Yeah that's so *totally* not 'Apple's fault... just wow.

It's totally untraceable. We stripped out the name, CC data, and address and simply replaced it with a numeric UID. There should be no way at all of determining the identity of somebody who routinely drives to and from a given residential address... Just like that AOL search dataset became totally anonymous when they switched to UIDs.

If they can somehow verify that the data actually is anonymized, I don't really have a problem with them submitting it to the government. The state departments of transportation need to know how people are actually driving. Getting that data normally takes long, expensive studies, but they do it anyway because it makes people safer: if the average speed on a road is 5 mph over the legal limit, that's probably not a big deal; if it's 30 mph over, then there may well be something wrong with the design of the road (alternatively, the speed limit may just be set too low). If TomTom can help make things less expensive for taxpayers and safer for all drivers, without compromising privacy—I see that as a win.

If they find the speed limit is typically 30mph over for a given highway, they will increase patrols on said highway. In addition to potential safety concerns, speed limits are used as a revenue source - essentially as an under the table tax. Thus providing data of any sort to the police could become more expensive for taxpayers.
The other problem with saying "oh its anonymous so it is ok with me" is how much easier it would be for them to start collecting unique identifiers for cars without explicitly in

Except for the fact that the government and police officers are all greedy bastards.

None of them will take the sane solution that since everyone is going 30 miles over the speed limit the speed limit should be raised. Instead, they see money and waste more taxpayer funds going after this "crime" rather than protecting people from actual crime.

The problem I have is that it most certainly CAN be traced to a particular user. A lonely strip of road in the middle of nowhere has one (maybe two) "hits" for speeding per day. Police find a nice spot to hide and pull over anyone with a GPS unit in the window going even slightly over the speed limit. They may not have your name in the GPS report, but you most definitely know you were the one flagging that TomTom service.

It would especially be bad if they recorded the time of the speeding "incident" beca